As we celebrate Haag’s 95th anniversary in 2019, we are looking back at some of the noteworthy projects Haag Engineers and Consultants have been involved with over the last 95 years. Each month in 2019, this blog will feature one unique, important project, as selected by our senior staff. This month, we're featuring Haag Education's Haag Certified Inspector- Commercial Roofs program, and we're doing a special 2-part feature "Assessing Hail Damage: Issues with “Functional” vs “Cosmetic” Damage".
The Haag Certified Inspector program began setting the damage assessment standard for roofs in 2007 with our HCRI-Residential (since changed to HCI-Residential) program. Immediately, Haag Education was inundated with questions about when a similar program would be released for commercial (flat roof) systems. Work immediately began on the new program and in September 2009, we presented our first HCI-Commercial class to a sold-out crowd in Irving, TX.
HCI-C quickly started to make its own mark in the industry among the more experienced adjusters, consultants, engineers, and commercial roofers. Damage assessors with the HCI-C professional designation were able to inspect roofs with more accuracy, efficiency and with more confidence.
The HCI-C program teaches students how to accurately identify and document hail/wind damage, installation issues, manufacturing issues on many types of commercial roofs including built-up, single-ply membrane (thermoplastic & thermoset), polymer-modified bitumen, SPF, metal and vegetated roofs. In addition to the roofing types, inspectors also learn about different coatings and issues that are specific to flat/commercial roofs.
As the commercial roofing industry evolves, so does our HCI-C program. Haag’s Research & Testing division, along with Haag’s engineers in the field, keep their fingers on the pulse of the industry. As a result of continuing changes to the industry, Haag Education introduced our HCI-C 2.0 version in 2018, a major overhaul of the program including some all-new class activities to enhance the learning experience.
In the last 10 years of HCI-C, nearly 3,700 industry professionals have earned the HCI-C designation and set themselves apart as premier commercial roof damage assessors. The first 10 years of HCI-C have contributed to changing our industry damage assessment standards, and Haag intends to keep the momentum going forward into the next decade of the Haag Certified Inspector program. Stay tuned for more updates on HCI-C and Haag’s next big industry changer!
By Justin Kestner, P.E., Steve Smith, P.E., and Jim Chaney, CPCU
As the season turns to fall, we will focus on something that falls from the sky in much of the U.S. – hail. This is the first of a two-part series on hail damage. The second part will be in next month’s blog. This post focuses on wording choices used in hail reports to describe hail effects. Part two will focus on proper hail inspection protocol, damage criteria, and so forth. This post was written by two Haag engineers and by a Haag Education Co. instructor, the latter of whom has been an adjuster and provided adjuster training for years prior to joining Haag Education. To be clear, it is this instructor who addresses policy provisions in this post, and it is the responsibility of the adjuster to know and apply each policy.
For those of us who have been assessing hail-caused damage to roofs for some time, the terms “functional damage” and “cosmetic damage” have been tossed around quite commonly over the years. But as insurance policies and case law have evolved, so too should your vernacular when it comes to hail damage assessment.
Some of you may have read a 2018 Haag blog on hail and metal roofing (https://haageducation.com/august-2018-blog-post/) or a read a CLM article on the same subject (http://clmmag.theclm.org/home/article/Testing-Your-Mettle). A recent court ruling in Indiana has shed light yet again on the subject of hail damage with respect to insurance claims (https://www.plrb.org/courtopinions/090419north.pdf).
The court in this decision, denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss an accusation of bad faith. The ruling cited the definition of hail damage applied by an engineer (not a Haag file, by the way) retained by the insurance company to evaluate “shingle” roofing. Per the plaintiff’s allegation, the engineer defined hail damage as “functional damage” while the policy covered “cosmetic shingle damage”. While the case itself has yet to be decided, the issue of cosmetic versus functional damage is one worth addressing.
Casual use of the term “damage” – either cosmetic or functional – by an expert can have major implications depending on a particular insurance policy. It is not the role of the engineer or roof consultant to interpret an insurance policy or make coverage decisions. Those tasks are solely the role of the insurance adjuster. Instead, the expert should clearly state what the hail did and did not do. Some basic examples follow.
If a client tasks an expert with answering a specific question, however, then the expert should answer that question as best as he or she can. For example, if the question is, “Did hail functionally damage the roof?”, then the client should advise the expert if there is a specific definition of “functional damage” the carrier is using that needs to be applied. If there is no governing definition, the expert will be left to state their own definition. [A longstanding definition of functional damage used by Haag is a reduction in the water-shedding capability or expected service life of the roofing material.] If the question is, “Was hail damage to roof cosmetic or functional?”, then questions arise as to the definitions of both functional and cosmetic damage.
Otherwise, the expert could consider referring to dents in metal, insignificant granule loss, or other such hail effects that did not shorten the service life or reduce the water-shedding capability of the roof or appurtenances as “cosmetic effects” or “cosmetic conditions”. By clearly stating what hail did and did not do to the roof and by avoiding the term “damage”, the inspector enables the insurance adjuster to perform his or her role of applying the policy and making coverage decisions.
Several courts in various states have addressed the issue of what constitutes “direct physical damage” under an insurance policy. In almost all cases thus far, courts have ruled that cosmetic changes in roofing materials caused by wind or hail are “damage” under the insurance policy. That, however, does not mean that the cosmetic changes are covered damage. Whether those conditions are covered will depend on the policy wording. Even if there is a cosmetic damage exclusion or similar endorsement on the policy, coverage will vary depending on the specific policy wording and occasionally on the state in which the loss occurs if a court in that jurisdiction has made a ruling that sets a precedent.
About the Authors: